Cap1 & CCA return

[car2403]

Has anyone had success applying for a order declaring the debt unenforceable from the Court under s.142 CCA 1974?

 

Well, depends what you mean. If you're asking if someone has had an Order, then I'm yet to see any. If you're asking if people have won, (i.e. they have had the debt written off as a result of their challenge) then yes, definately - there are plenty of examples around the forum. Also search for threads with "car2403" in the title and look at my HFC Claim 1, HFC Claim 2, GE Money, RBS... Need I go on?

[Matheram]

Hi car2403 if a court order is not obtained to declair the debt unenforceable then how do the situation end or are you just constantly chased or do the ccc do a f&F and leave it at that ?

[sunray001]

Hi,

 

They just keep chasing you until they feel there is no monetary benefit to themselves, and then sell it on.

The bottom line is, they will never leave you alone.

 

regards

[vint1954]

Hi,

 

They just keep chasing you until they feel there is no monetary benefit to themselves, and then sell it on.

The bottom line is, they will never leave you alone.

 

regards

Until 6 years after your last payment or acknowledgement of debt.

 

Choice is yours realy, press and take a risk in court or wait it out.

[car2403]

Hi car2403 if a court order is not obtained to declair the debt unenforceable then how do the situation end or are you just constantly chased or do the ccc do a f&F and leave it at that ?

 

Hi,

 

They just keep chasing you until they feel there is no monetary benefit to themselves, and then sell it on.

The bottom line is, they will never leave you alone.

 

regards

 

Until 6 years after your last payment or acknowledgement of debt.

 

Choice is yours realy, press and take a risk in court or wait it out.

 

Talking from experience and what I've seen happen on other threads, the debts are written off and are never heard of again. In most cases, the CRA data is removed or adjusted to show no negative data.

 

The problem with this, of course, is that settlements are usually made subject to confidentialty clauses - and claimants are more than happy to agree to that, as it resolves their issues.

[sunray001]

The DCAs will keep pushing your buttons to see if you cave in.

They do not really care about CCAs or anything else.

 

They WILL try it on.

 

New DCAs are coming in fresh. You are slowly being worn down, unless of course you enjoy the fight.

 

I have found that if you have property, assets or working, they are

more likely to take you to court. They will chance their arm, hoping you will not defend and that they will get a judgement by default.

 

ALWAYS defend and claim costs.

[car2403]

The DCAs will keep pushing your buttons to see if you cave in.

They do not really care about CCAs or anything else.

 

They WILL try it on.

 

New DCAs are coming in fresh. You are slowly being worn down, unless of course you enjoy the fight.

 

I have found that if you have property, assets or working, they are

more likely to take you to court. They will chance their arm, hoping you will not defend and that they will get a judgement by default.

 

ALWAYS defend and claim costs.

 

Not sure I get your meaning - if the debt is written off and I have a consent order stating that no further collection activity will take place, how do you think a new DCA will come in and start chasing me, exactly? If they did, I'd go back to Court to have the consent order reviewed by a Judge and ask him to injunct them from chasing me further. I'd also claim costs for doing so. This has never happened to me.

[Matheram]

Car2043 have you had any dealings with Barclaycard or know anyone who has ?

 

is it best to assume if i cannot get a true copy of my CCA from them that it would be unenforceadble?

 

from the threads iv been reading it seems to of taken most people about 6 months to get through this whole dance would that be your experience?

 

and am i to assume that if they take you to court which they would almost certainly threaten to do, how would the cost work ie do they have to pay any charges for that to take you?

 

and do you know anyone who has gone to court and lost in this situation?

 

kind regards:)

[Jeff2000]

Car2043 have you had any dealings with Barclaycard or know anyone who has ?

 

is it best to assume if i cannot get a true copy of my CCA from them that it would be unenforceadble?

 

from the threads iv been reading it seems to of taken most people about 6 months to get through this whole dance would that be your experience?

 

and am i to assume that if they take you to court which they would almost certainly threaten to do, how would the cost work ie do they have to pay any charges for that to take you?

 

and do you know anyone who has gone to court and lost in this situation?

 

kind regards:)

 

 

 

Hi Matheram,

 

 

If you haven't already, have a read of my thread here;

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/72876-mercers-barclaycard.html

 

 

You should also take a look at Heather's thread here;

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/128460-barclaycard-county-court-claim.html

 

 

and Viano's thread here;

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/119668-lba-optima-leagal-services.html

 

 

Hope this helps a bit.

 

 

Regards, Jeff.

[car2403]

Car2043 have you had any dealings with Barclaycard or know anyone who has ?

 

Yes, although I didn't have to go to Court.

 

is it best to assume if i cannot get a true copy of my CCA from them that it would be unenforceadble?

 

That seems reasonable to assume.

 

from the threads iv been reading it seems to of taken most people about 6 months to get through this whole dance would that be your experience?

 

About that. Mine were longer, but that's when they had Bank Charge claims going on as well.

 

and am i to assume that if they take you to court which they would almost certainly threaten to do, how would the cost work ie do they have to pay any charges for that to take you?

 

There is a fee to go to Court - if they sue you, you can defend without cost, or you can defend and counterclaim for a fee. If you sue them, you have to pay the Courts fees.

 

and do you know anyone who has gone to court and lost in this situation?

 

Definately. See my GE Money claim, where I lost.

 

The problem here is that it doesn't sit well with Judges that Debtors can have debts declared unenforceable - they believe that you have borrowed the funds, so should repay it. The legal argument is not should you repay it, but should it be enforceable against you. If you're thinking of going to Court, you need to be fully informed so you can deal with this at trial, if/when you get there.

 

There is risk involved with every claim, which is why we advise a thread for each claim, as each is individual in it's own right.

[Matheram]

thanks car points noted so if it did go to court i would have a fee to pay? and how much is that if they took me?

 

Jeff

 

read through your thread and im not sure really what the outcome was lol i am new to this so was it a case it was deemed unenforceable and you didnt have to pay the balance any longer? or did you just get charges and ppi refunded?

 

Thankx

[car2403]

If you sue them, there are fees to pay. If they sue you and you defend, there is no charge to you.

 

Which claim are you talking about?

[Matheram]

car

 

I mean if i pursue the fact my barclaycard is uneforceable and they take me to court what would i have to pay ?

 

i have been refered to various barclaycard threads now by helpful people where it states they won am i missing something though because i cant seem to see what they actualy won??????????

 

are they saying yes they were uneforceable and had no further payments to make ?

 

did they just get charges back and class that as a win?

 

did they just get a very small F&F

 

I dont seem to be able to see on any of these threads what the final tangiable outcome was financialy or legaly ?

 

I think this is probabily just me not understanding the terminology but can someone help me out what did these people actualy finaly achevie from there months of hassle?

[sunray001]

Not sure I get your meaning - if the debt is written off and I have a consent order stating that no further collection activity will take place, how do you think a new DCA will come in and start chasing me, exactly? If they did, I'd go back to Court to have the consent order reviewed by a Judge and ask him to injunct them from chasing me further. I'd also claim costs for doing so. This has never happened to me.

 

We are not dealing with sensible people here. They hope you just get fed up and pay up. I know people who were still being hounded even after bankruptcy. You know a bit about the court sytem, others don't.

They just hope they get lucky. It's possible to beat a smart person, sometimes it's more difficult to beat a lucky person.

 

regards

[car2403]

I mean if i pursue the fact my barclaycard is uneforceable and they take me to court what would i have to pay ?

 

If you defend a claim, there is no cost.

 

i have been refered to various barclaycard threads now by helpful people where it states they won am i missing something though because i cant seem to see what they actualy won??????????

 

are they saying yes they were uneforceable and had no further payments to make ?

 

did they just get charges back and class that as a win?

 

did they just get a very small F&F

 

I dont seem to be able to see on any of these threads what the final tangiable outcome was financialy or legaly ?

 

You probably won't as most people are tied to settlement agreements - read between the lines, though, I'd say.

 

No company wants an unenforceable debt on their books - most, but not all, will write it off and move on. Those that don't will employ DCA's - some even specialise in unenforceable debt recovery - but if you know your rights, you can easily deal with that. (With help from CAG, of course)

 

We are not dealing with sensible people here. They hope you just get fed up and pay up. I know people who were still being hounded even after bankruptcy. You know a bit about the court sytem, others don't.

They just hope they get lucky. It's possible to beat a smart person, sometimes it's more difficult to beat a lucky person.

 

regards

 

I think I've answered this about. If you know your rights and are prepared to stand up for yourself, these DCA's don't know what to do. The Law is there to protect you, in such instances - it's just knowing how to apply it and how to follow through, which is key, and that is where CAG comes in.

 

I only know what I know as I've been on this site a long time - in reality, reading a few threads, starting your own and asking questions that apply to you, will get you the same results the majority of the time. There are many other members far more experienced than I am and they are all willing to lend you a hand without compensation to see justice done. It's all laid out, here, on this site, should you choose to take the mantel up yourself - you just need to know where to look.

[tbern123]

We are not dealing with sensible people here. They hope you just get fed up and pay up. I know people who were still being hounded even after bankruptcy. You know a bit about the court sytem, others don't.

They just hope they get lucky. It's possible to beat a smart person, sometimes it's more difficult to beat a lucky person.

 

regards

 

There are options available to stop them in their tracks dead and to ensure that they NEVER hound you again:wink:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/36665-cabot-again-urgent-help.html

[enoughisenough]

We are not even dealing with sensible judges here. I speak of the following:

 

judges who hold up a flimsy segment of your defence / evidence/ witness statement / skeleton argument as if it were a soiled nappy.

 

Judges who believe that LIPs need vigorous, not least to say contemptuous and condescending cross examination from the outset.

 

Judges who grant a variation of order suspended generally with liberty to restore hearing and then trash the application refuse to hear any of the points, ask where previously submitted evidence is.

 

Judges who pretend that mistakes by solicitors are valid points of law.

 

Judges who mod in agreement when solicitors for the opposing party make claims that are simply untrue and block any attempt to challenge as an abuse of procedure.

 

Judges who expect courtesy and respect but offer neither.

 

Judges who interrupt.

 

Judges who only take notice that you might actually know something be on to something and might actually have a valid legal point, only to find that point inconvenient and so steer the direction of the hearing elsewhere.

 

Judges who, quite frankly, say things like how do you know the charges are unfair, when there's a welter of regulations, authorities and evidence before their eyes, which, guess what... They didn't bother to read.

 

Finally the civil procedure rules, mcob, cjc etc only apply to the big boys.

 

The preaction protocols were observed because they decided to suspend proving that their only intention was to make me pay ALL THEY DEMAND. This is not over yet.

 

Sorry for the hijack. Can a mod please move this to the Fraud act 2006 thread?

 

Ta. X.

[car2403]

We are not even dealing with sensible judges here. I speak of the following:

 

judges who hold up a flimsy segment of your defence / evidence/ witness statement / skeleton argument as if it were a soiled nappy.

 

Judges who believe that LIPs need vigorous, not least to say contemptuous and condescending cross examination from the outset.

 

Judges who grant a variation of order suspended generally with liberty to restore hearing and then trash the application refuse to hear any of the points, ask where previously submitted evidence is.

 

Judges who pretend that mistakes by solicitors are valid points of law.

 

Judges who mod in agreement when solicitors for the opposing party make claims that are simply untrue and block any attempt to challenge as an abuse of procedure.

 

Judges who expect courtesy and respect but offer neither.

 

Judges who interrupt.

 

Judges who only take notice that you might actually know something be on to something and might actually have a valid legal point, only to find that point inconvenient and so steer the direction of the hearing elsewhere.

 

Judges who, quite frankly, say things like how do you know the charges are unfair, when there's a welter of regulations, authorities and evidence before their eyes, which, guess what... They didn't bother to read.

 

Finally the civil procedure rules, mcob, cjc etc only apply to the big boys.

 

The preaction protocols were observed because they decided to suspend proving that their only intention was to make me pay ALL THEY DEMAND. This is not over yet.

 

Sorry for the hijack. Can a mod please move this to the Fraud act 2006 thread?

 

Ta. X.

 

Don't think you're hijacking, as these are all relevant points. (although I can copy your post to another thread if you want - just use the report post function and give a link to the thread you want it copied to and the site team will do it for you)

 

The point, though, is that District Judges (or Deputy District Judges) seem to struggle with challenges of morality. Where they get it wrong, as above, it leaves room to appeal to a higher Judge/Court, but you must be aware of the issue of costs should the appeal go against you. Of course, you can appeal again, but this could start getting very expensive.

[AA99]

Gosh e-is-e, I so agree with you. It does go to show though, however much we may not approve, that a good lawyer is worth every penny. However also, have read a good thread on here lately where a part-time site team legal person () emphasised how important it was that when/if any one of us does have to get into court, that we cannot expect each and every Judge to know by heart all the consumer laws. It is therefore very important that the LIP has their defence, clearly and concisely prepared to (very nicely) remind the Judge on the day what the law 'says'

[Jeff2000]

car

 

I mean if i pursue the fact my barclaycard is uneforceable and they take me to court what would i have to pay ?

 

i have been refered to various barclaycard threads now by helpful people where it states they won am i missing something though because i cant seem to see what they actualy won??????????

 

are they saying yes they were uneforceable and had no further payments to make ?

 

did they just get charges back and class that as a win?

 

did they just get a very small F&F

 

I dont seem to be able to see on any of these threads what the final tangiable outcome was financialy or legaly ?

 

I think this is probabily just me not understanding the terminology but can someone help me out what did these people actualy finaly achevie from there months of hassle?

 

 

Hi Matheram,

 

 

All I can say in my case with Barclaycard is;

 

I CCA'd them. They sent what we all know as an application form, without any prescribed terms. I challenged this. They, actually their mates at Mercers sent a default notice. This was invalid for various reasons.

 

Eventually they started proceedings against me. After giving me the runaround regarding the serving of documents etc. they agreed to withdraw the claim with certain provisions.

 

This is similar to many other cases with Barclaycard.

 

 

Jeff.

[Matheram]

This is what i mean jeff "they withdrew there claim" lol what is that supposed to mean ? you no longer have to pay for the credit card? it has been reduced? you won some money back?

 

and what do you mean with certain provisions?

 

this is the problem i have it seems a very long process and no one seems to be able to say " yep at the end they walked away it was cancelled and i havent had to pay anything to them again"

 

i certainly couldnt go through all this to find out that it cost me alot of time and effort for very little outcome

 

[MAGDA]

We are not even dealing with sensible judges here. I speak of the following:

 

judges who hold up a flimsy segment of your defence / evidence/ witness statement / skeleton argument as if it were a soiled nappy.

 

Judges who believe that LIPs need vigorous, not least to say contemptuous and condescending cross examination from the outset.

 

Judges who grant a variation of order suspended generally with liberty to restore hearing and then trash the application refuse to hear any of the points, ask where previously submitted evidence is.

 

Judges who pretend that mistakes by solicitors are valid points of law.

 

Judges who mod in agreement when solicitors for the opposing party make claims that are simply untrue and block any attempt to challenge as an abuse of procedure.

 

Judges who expect courtesy and respect but offer neither.

 

Judges who interrupt.

 

Judges who only take notice that you might actually know something be on to something and might actually have a valid legal point, only to find that point inconvenient and so steer the direction of the hearing elsewhere.

 

Judges who, quite frankly, say things like how do you know the charges are unfair, when there's a welter of regulations, authorities and evidence before their eyes, which, guess what... They didn't bother to read.

 

Finally the civil procedure rules, mcob, cjc etc only apply to the big boys.

 

The preaction protocols were observed because they decided to suspend proving that their only intention was to make me pay ALL THEY DEMAND. This is not over yet.

 

Sorry for the hijack. Can a mod please move this to the Fraud act 2006 thread?

 

Ta. X.

 

mmm... that sounds exactly like a couple of judges I've had recently.

[Bincrunched]

Hi all

I subbed this thread and have been following intently.

I've had 2 different companies discontinue their claims against me!

 

I don't think it's a case of whether you've won or not but they cannot continue to harass you for outstanding balances.

I think what they are saying is, 'We know we can't get the money out of you, so we are not prepared to waste further legal costs trying to do so!'

 

However that doesn't mean you've won as they will still rubbish you with the CRA's whether you have a valid agreement or not! That is of course unless you take them on legally and win!

Which I haven't done yet but thats my next move, no guarantees I'd win though

[car2403]

This is what i mean jeff "they withdrew there claim" lol what is that supposed to mean ? you no longer have to pay for the credit card? it has been reduced? you won some money back?

 

and what do you mean with certain provisions?

 

this is the problem i have it seems a very long process and no one seems to be able to say " yep at the end they walked away it was cancelled and i havent had to pay anything to them again"

 

i certainly couldnt go through all this to find out that it cost me alot of time and effort for very little outcome

 

 

Right, here you go, then;

 

yep at the end I walked away it was cancelled and I havent had to pay anything to them again

 

[enoughisenough]

That's clear enough then. Were Barclaycard still useless around 2006? In terms of agreements that were properly and lawfully executed?

 

and it's a dead certain that crap one were around 2000.

 

Can I get back what I've paid in to an unenforceable agreement or is that at the court's discretion.